Hi AS and all - the planning was undoubtedly complex and that in itself is significant to me.

I struggle to accept that the end purpose of such an involved and carefully crafted plan was for a thief to lay his hands on whatever cash he could find in the home of a small time insurance official. It just seems inadequate reward for so much thought and work.

Far more likely to me, the aim of the whole enterprise was to bump off Mrs Wallace or, in a near psychotic way, to humiliate Wallace himself. If the latter, things somehow snowballed and ended disastrously. I appreciate that last possible scenario goes some way in Rod's direction. Whilst I find major flaws in Rod's solution and his confidence in it to be near ridiculous, I don't totally dismiss all of his theorising although you, AS, and others have caused me to look for the murderer closer to home.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

As regards to your humiliating Wallace idea, I think that's quite clever and I touched upon that concept in my last couple posts on the previous page. The call is made as a joke and the visit the following night unplanned or at least casual to revel in the prank and something goes wrong. This explains why the plot doesn't really make sense for a robbery.

The thing is it still doesn't explain Wallace's odd behavior and the numerous coincidences that point to him. He would still have to have been extremely unlucky to a large magnitude imo to not have been involved at all.

Well i got my replacement copy of the Murphy book today and something stood out in it at a quick glance.

Anyone following this thread might recall the point that i made about Wallace, in the court transcript, saying that on the monday night he went ‘up Belmont’ to get his tram. Rod said that this was obviously an error of transcription at the court because there were no trams to be caught in Belmont Road on the monday night. He stated, as others have believed, that Wallace caught his tram in Breck Road at the stop near to the junction of Belmont Road. I suggested the tram that stopped at the corner of West Derby Road (the stop that Wallace and Caird arrived back at later that night) but Rod, for reasons only known to himself, refused to answer my question: “would the tram that Wallace and Caird returned on (that stopped at West Derby Road) have taken Wallace to the chess club on the monday night?”) Plenty of mockery and insults but no response except ‘it was an error in the court transcript’ and ‘he caught the tram in Breck Road by the junction of Belmont.’

Then i saw this part of Wallace’s Police statement made on 22/11/31 in which he states:

“When i left home on Monday night to go to the chess club i think i walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road and then up Belmont Road, where i boarded a tramcar and got off at the corner of Lord Street and North John Street.” This should speak for itself.
So Rod. Not only did the court apparently transcribe Wallace’s words incorrectly but so apparently did the police!.

The stop that Rod and others believe that used was in Breck Road before a traveller even got to Belmont Road.

The only reasonable interpretation of these 2 sources (which cant both be errors) is that Wallace, as he said, went up Belmont Road, i.e. he went along Belmont Road. And so the only stop that he could have used was the one at the corner of West Derby Road.

So what do we gain from this?

While we have debated whether Wallace used the stop in Breck Road or the one near to the phone box we have Wallace telling us that, for some unknown reason, he walked to a stop three times further away than both alternatives!

Its also noticeable that, in that police statement he says “i think i walked...” Why was he unsure about a route that he would undoubtedly have taken every time that he went to the chess club?”

The only conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Wallace lied to try to put himself far away from the tram stop near the incriminating phone box. And if Wallace lied we can say with a high level of certainty that he was indeed guilty of killing Julia.

Well i got my replacement copy of the Murphy book today and something stood out in it at a quick glance.

Anyone following this thread might recall the point that i made about Wallace, in the court transcript, saying that on the monday night he went ‘up Belmont’ to get his tram. Rod said that this was obviously an error of transcription at the court because there were no trams to be caught in Belmont Road on the monday night. He stated, as others have believed, that Wallace caught his tram in Breck Road at the stop near to the junction of Belmont Road. I suggested the tram that stopped at the corner of West Derby Road (the stop that Wallace and Caird arrived back at later that night) but Rod, for reasons only known to himself, refused to answer my question: “would the tram that Wallace and Caird returned on (that stopped at West Derby Road) have taken Wallace to the chess club on the monday night?”) Plenty of mockery and insults but no response except ‘it was an error in the court transcript’ and ‘he caught the tram in Breck Road by the junction of Belmont.’

Then i saw this part of Wallace’s Police statement made on 22/11/31 in which he states:

“When i left home on Monday night to go to the chess club i think i walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road and then up Belmont Road, where i boarded a tramcar and got off at the corner of Lord Street and North John Street.” This should speak for itself.
So Rod. Not only did the court apparently transcribe Wallace’s words incorrectly but so apparently did the police!.

The stop that Rod and others believe that used was in Breck Road before a traveller even got to Belmont Road.

The only reasonable interpretation of these 2 sources (which cant both be errors) is that Wallace, as he said, went up Belmont Road, i.e. he went along Belmont Road. And so the only stop that he could have used was the one at the corner of West Derby Road.

So what do we gain from this?

While we have debated whether Wallace used the stop in Breck Road or the one near to the phone box we have Wallace telling us that, for some unknown reason, he walked to a stop three times further away than both alternatives!

Its also noticeable that, in that police statement he says “i think i walked...” Why was he unsure about a route that he would undoubtedly have taken every time that he went to the chess club?”

The only conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Wallace lied to try to put himself far away from the tram stop near the incriminating phone box. And if Wallace lied we can say with a high level of certainty that he was indeed guilty of killing Julia.

Hi, Herlock

Well done!

I think it is hard to explain away why an innocent Wallace would take the longer route and if he didn't then why did he lie about it? Definitely an odd inconsistency you've picked up on.

As regards to your humiliating Wallace idea, I think that's quite clever and I touched upon that concept in my last couple posts on the previous page. The call is made as a joke and the visit the following night unplanned or at least casual to revel in the prank and something goes wrong. This explains why the plot doesn't really make sense for a robbery.

The thing is it still doesn't explain Wallace's odd behavior and the numerous coincidences that point to him. He would still have to have been extremely unlucky to a large magnitude imo to not have been involved at all.

Thanks, AS.

As you appreciate, I'm not going to die in a ditch supporting the someone set out to humiliate Wallace and it all went horribly wrong scenario. Just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

My initial thoughts when I first came to look at this case was to be sympathetic towards Wallace and to attribute his odd behaviour to him being an odd individual. A rather lonely, downtrodden, sickly, geeky, chess playing, lowly insurance man - what more do you want?

However, various posts - particularly from you and Herlock (vey good recent one about the tram stops) - now make me feel I was originally too generous in respect of Wallace. Your reference to the numerous coincidences also certainly seems pertinent.

As a bit of an aside, it is a shame that Rod invites ridicule with the manner of his posts. He obviously has some knowledge concerning the case and a different take on things from many here. It would be good to sensibly debate matters from another viewpoint and is disappointing that he is unable to do that.

Hi Herlock - an approach to the tv company might just result in success. Although the programme was made as far back as 1975, that was still three or four years after tapes had stopped being routinely wiped. Consequently, there has to be a decent chance it still exists. Whether it can be found may be another matter. I've looked before and again now on YouTube but with no joy.

As you appreciate, I'm not going to die in a ditch supporting the someone set out to humiliate Wallace and it all went horribly wrong scenario. Just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

My initial thoughts when I first came to look at this case was to be sympathetic towards Wallace and to attribute his odd behaviour to him being an odd individual. A rather lonely, downtrodden, sickly, geeky, chess playing, lowly insurance man - what more do you want?

However, various posts - particularly from you and Herlock (vey good recent one about the tram stops) - now make me feel I was originally too generous in respect of Wallace. Your reference to the numerous coincidences also certainly seems pertinent.

As a bit of an aside, it is a shame that Rod invites ridicule with the manner of his posts. He obviously has some knowledge concerning the case and a different take on things from many here. It would be good to sensibly debate matters from another viewpoint and is disappointing that he is unable to do that.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound,

I agree Wallace could have just been an odd personality. It certainly seems he was of a strange, sad, and rather "geeky" personality. One can find some sympathy for such a man, at least I can.

However, I still see many concerning coincidences that cannot be explained by Wallace's character.

Some of these like the timing of the call and the location of it have alternative explanations (if the killer/caller was someone else he would have stalked Wallace and called right after Wallace passed the box etc.) I find this straining credulity a bit, but it is not totally implausible.

However, some do not seem to me to have obvious explanations that could reconcile an innocent Wallace apart from unusual coincidence.

If Wallace were truly innocent, it would mean that the caller

1. Happened to choose the correct night to stalk Wallace and make the call to the club for the 1st time, after Wallace had missed the previous FOUR meetings at the chess club. Or conversely, he had tried this whole charade in the past and somehow was so into his convoluted plan that he was down to try it again after it failed when Wallace didn't show up.

2. Not only was relying on Wallace making it to the club that night, but was relying on the fact that the message would be remembered correctly, delivered, and followed up on the following night by Wallace, which would necessitate the caller going thru the whole thing the following night of stalking out Wallace and waiting for him to leave etc. before hitting up 29 Wolverton St.

3. Even if the plan was simply a prank that later went wrong (say the pranker(s) decided to see if Wallace was leaving the Tuesday night and then entered 29 Wolverton, to revel in it and chat up his clueless, friendly (although apparently suspicious and forlorn) elderly wife ), this would still mean that the perpetrators would have gotten awfully lucky that Wallace had actually gone on the journey, hadn't consulted a map, and had stayed out so long. They could have easily been caught in the act otherwise, despite the fact that their initial intention might have just been to laugh at the situation or Wallace when he returned, even if to themselves or himself (whether it was 1 or 2 people involved)

On the other hand Wallace if truly innocent would be very unlucky.

It would mean he

1. Left just at around the time where his candidacy could be considered quite plausible and only a few minutes after a milk boy, who was later than usual arrived. If he was guilty, he would have had to have waited for the milk boy to come and go as had happened. If he was innocent, he could have left whenever and if he had left before or even as the milk boy was there, he would be totally in the clear. One could also argue an earlier departure time would make more sense if innocent going to an address he did not know across town, of which he began asking desperately for almost right away. Consider he arrived in the area barely on time, if he had KNOWN the address.

2. Going on official business, somehow decided that despite the 400 other leads he called on that miserable day, that this was important enough to follow up on (understandable somewhat in regards to wanting a commission or being flattered by professional recognition), yet for the punctual, precise Wallace somehow NOT important enough to look at a map and realize MGE did not exist. Even if he had decided to go anyway and assumed the address was incorrectly transcribed (I've seen this argument before as to why he kept searching) it would take away a significant piece of his alibi--the asking incessantly about the phony address.

3. Fell hook line and sinker into a plot, whether or not it was a malicious murder/robbery plot or simply a mean prank, that implicated him horribly in his wife's murder when this would not have been the case if any number of things had shaken out differently.

He could have not decided go

He could have gone and come back early, perhaps he would have been in danger himself in such a scenario, but it would be unlikely he would be the sole suspect in his wife's murder as he was in 1931.

Julia could have not let in the killer, she almost certainly wouldn't if it wasn't someone she knew. If it was, she may or may not depending on how she felt etc. Remember she had a bad cold that night!

People in the neighborhood could have seen anything suspicious pointing to someone else. A car lingering on either of the 2 nights etc. The milk boys were observed for example, so this wouldn't be such a crazy thing to expect if another perpetrator drove away from the scene panicked.

None of these.

In regards to Rod,

I agree the man is obviously not stupid. For someone clearly competent to discuss the case, it is a shame he comports himself in the manner he does. Unfortunately, I have found out that intelligence (and I do think he is of a higher than normal aptitude) does not necessarily correlate with civil discourse or fair and logical thinking (not a criticism of his position which simply in my opinion is not likely, but of the complete certainty he ascribes to it). In fact, I would say often times intelligence seems directly inversely proportional to these 2 virtues!

If he came back and behaved in a different manner, I would be more than willing to let bygones be bygones and move on from any past squabbles to have a pleasant discourse about the case. I also engaged in some reactive back and forth posting which wasn't my finest moment, none of us are perfect and I don't hold a personal grudge; I have never met Rod and can only respond to how he portrays himself online.

It seems unlikely such a reconciliation would happen, but I would welcome him with open arms if it does. The more genuine people discussing this interesting case, the better in my opinion.

PS. In regards to the 1975 Who Killed Julia Wallace production, I believe someone had tried many years ago to get it replayed and the company simply and to the point wrote back "We have no plans to air that at this time"

In the era of Web 2.0 and youtube's endless catalogue of videos though, I somehow feel we might stand a better chance of getting this aired or at least available somewhere online.

Hi again Herlock - I actually thought that's the way you would go. Entirely fair and sensible to my mind.

I totally agree about a mock trial. In his later years, I became friendly with the late actor Eric Longworth (best known - if at all - for a small semi-recurring role in the UK comedy series Dads' Army). It was only after his death that I found out he had played the part of Wallace in a well regarded tv production of the case. I wish I had known that earlier and discussed the role with him.

That is not surprising to me since I believe that production hints strongly at Wallace's guilt. So much so that Jonathan Goodman wrote an angry letter about it!

It also has no mention of Parry. The 1981 Radio City production finally naming Parry (Goodman did not do so until then as Parry was still alive in 1969 when his book was first published out of fear of libel laws), turned the case around in many's eyes.

After re-reading Murphy, and because im a bit bored at the moment, i thought that id list some questions/statements about the case. These are questions/statements id put to someone who believe Wallace innocent and Parry, or another, guilty.

1. As an unpremeditated killer would have been unlikely in the extreme to have taken any precautions against being covered in blood, and there was certainly no evidence of a clean-up. This speaks of a planned kill.

2. Eleven blows speaks of anger rather than a spur of the moment killing to silence.

3. Why would a spur-of-the-moment killer have taken the time to have turned off the downstairs lights?

4. Why would ‘Qualtrough’ have had any reasonable level of certainty that Wallace had ‘taken the bait’ when there were so many ways that the plan could have failed?

5. Why did Wallace, at his trial and in a statement to the police, indicate that on the monday evening, he went to a tram stop 3 times further away than the ones that have been suggested?

6. Why should be think that Parry’s alibi’s for the monday and tuesday were false? We have no evidence that witnesses lied.

7. Why should we accept Parkes unbelievable story as true?

8. Why did Wallace, on exiting the kitchen on the tuesday evening, and with the parlour door in touching distance, did he walk past it to go looking upstairs?

9. Why did a thief/killer not search drawers and Julia’s bag for cash? Why did he leave her jewellery untouched?

10. What reasonable/plausible other reason is there for the presence of Wallace’s mackintosh other than the possibilty that Wallace used it in some way to shield himself from blood?

11. Who was the only person that would have been certain that Wallace had fallen for the Qualtrough call? Only Wallace himself.

12. Who is the only suspect that can definitely be placed at the scene of the crime?

13. If we posit that thief would have had to have accepted the fact that Julia could have identified him why kill her if she’d caught him in the act?

14. Why didnt the thief go in while Wallace was at chess?

15. Because Wallace was an infrequent attender at the chess club how many times would Parry have been prepared to sit and wait for him to go to chess so that he could make the call? Especially if, as it has been alleged, that he was desperate for cash.

16. Why did Wallace not point the finger at Parry earlier but only after he was acquitted?

17. Why did no-one see or hear any strangers in Wolverton Street on the night of the murders? He would, after all, have knocked on the door and had a short conversation with Julia.

18. If a sneak-thief wore gloves, and its surely likely, why did he take away a weapon that couldnt have been connected to him in any way?

19. Why did Wallace persevere in his search after being told that MGE did not exist?

20. Why should we discount the inconvenient testimony of Curwen, Wilson and Mathers who spoke against the ‘happy marriage’ and Wallace’s character?

21. Why didnt the meticulous Wallace check the location of MGE during the day on Tuesday?

22. Why did Wallace initially keep quiet about having visited Crewe at his home?

23. Can any other suspect be placed near the scene of the crime that night?

24. If we discount the sneak-thief would a thief/killer have been likely to have replaced the cash box?

25. Who would have had access to chemicals which might jave helped in achieving a more thorough clean up?

26. Should we just dismiss the fact that the police, after a thorough investigation, believed that they had their man?

27. Who benefitted most from speaking in a ‘gruff’ voice to Beattie but a normal one to the phone operators but Wallace?

28. If we accept that there was anger/resentment/hatred in those 11 vicious blows who else but Wallace could be suspected?

29. If Wallace had a wash before going out on the tuesday why was the towel in the bathroom completely dry and yet the nail brush was still wet?

These were just thoughts that came to me in around an hour or so. There are more. Could anyone taking an unbiased view conclude other than the fact that Wallace is quite overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect. In fact i would go so far as to say that he is the only suspect for the murder of Julia.